 
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Monday, October 29, 2001
Vice President Cheney should be spreading confidence, not fear
It is difficult to describe the complete shock and anger I felt when I read the Oct. 19 article "Expect More Attacks, Cheney Warns," which recounted portions of Vice President Dick Cheney's speech before a charity dinner in New York the night before. Cheney stated: "The enemy has shown a capacity to inflict great damage on the United State and we have to assume there will be more attacks. That is the only safe way to proceed. For the first time in our history, we will probably suffer more casualties here at home in America than among our troops overseas."
For the last six weeks, the president and most everyone else in government have spent a great deal of time trying to encourage the American people "to resume our normal lives" and cautioning that to allow fear to dictate your life will go a long way toward accomplishing the end that the terrorists counted on.
Even so, our economy has clearly shown that many of our people are reticent about resuming normality. It has been reported that many have a bunker type of depression as to whether their country or their lives will ever again be the same. Many millions do not take their safety, in doing even everyday things, for granted.
However, whatever progress the country has made took a missile-size hit when Cheney announced to all of us that there will be "more attacks" (presumably that we cannot stop) and that "we will probably suffer more casualties here at home" than our troops in combat.
I cannot believe that the No. 2 person in the U.S. government, who should be encouraging optimism and inspiring confidence, would ever say anything so negative, irresponsible and frightening. Can you think of any wartime leader in history who has ever made such an uninspiring statement?
People also assume that he knows more than he probably does know, and will place great weight on his words. From what I have read, the shell-shocked Taliban leaders are more encouraging with their followers than Cheney is with us.
This was only his second public appearance since Sept. 11. His first was a television interview on Sept. 16, when he told us how, on Sept. 11, he took charge of the country, told President Bush to stay out of Washington and ordered Congress underground, all from his bunker deep in the White House. Now, in his second appearance, he has told the country to expect the worst, something no other responsible leaders have even hinted.
I suggest that the country and the administration would be far better off if Vice President Doomsday were confined to his present bunker, preferably without a telephone.
JOHN M. FEENEY
Let us not forget
I am concerned that with all the "newer" news about the war in Afghanistan and the anthrax scare, we are not remembering the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as much as we should.
Those who lost loved ones are only in their second month of grieving, and yet as the cleanup continues at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it is no longer at the forefront of our attention.
To honor and keep alive the memory of those who perished, I plan to wear something "patriotic" on Veterans Day, Nov. 11, and on the 11th of each month thereafter. It's a small gesture, but it will be a reminder to me and perhaps to others of the tragedy and heroism of Sept. 11; it will be a reminder to keep those who mourn in my thoughts and prayers. Maybe others will join me.
EILEEN SWAZUK
Ads not lawful
I am writing to bring to your attention an error in an article run in the Oct. 25 issue of your paper.
An article by Mark Belko, headined "Group Halts Ads About Supreme Court Nominees," stated that Kevin Watson, a spokesman for the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (the group that was running the ads at issue), relied on statements I purportedly made to a reporter for the Philadelphia Legal Intelligencer:
"To buttress his argument, [Mr. Watson] pointed to an article in the Legal Intelligencer in which Sherry Swirsky, general counsel for the state Democratic Committee, was quoted as saying that while the ads might violate the spirit of state campaign finance laws, it did not appear the alliance did anything wrong."
This statement is inaccurate in several critical respects. First, I am not the "general counsel for the state Democratic Committee," nor did I ever represent to the author of the Legal Intelligencer article that I was.
Moreover, in my interview with the reporter for the Legal Intelligencer, I did not make any statements expressing any opinions whatsoever on the legality of these ads. The statements in the Legal Intelligencer article attributed to me were not an accurate reflection of my interview with that newspaper's reporter, as discussed in my letter to the editor of that newspaper.
At the time I gave the interview to the Legal Intelligencer, I did not know of the specifics of the LEAA ads -- and I explicitly informed the Legal Intelligencer reporter of that fact.
Since then, I have learned information about those ads that leads me to conclude the precise opposite of the LEAA's position that the ads are lawful under Pennsylvania law.
SHERRY A. SWIRSKY
Pooh lives
We were pleased to read your editorial tribute to A.A. Milne's "Winnie the Pooh" on turning 75 ("Pooh at 75," Oct. 15). We disagree, however, that it is the Disney studios that are responsible for introducing this classic to today's children.
What the Disney studios packages and hucksters is Disney's Pooh, not Milne's.
It does not take Disney to perpetuate a literary classic -- even for children..
JANET and GEORGE WILEY
Tract litter
I was walking down East Carson Street last Friday when two very nice women smiled and offered my friend and me each a religious tract. My friend declined; I took one and actually read it. I then tossed it into one of the city trash cans. End of story? No!
The couple that they offered tracts to next took them and dropped them on the ground. As I walked home I noticed numerous tracts on the pavement. The next day, I saw even more tracts.
I know that these religious folks are well intentioned, but they need to understand that they are contributing to the South Side's existing litter problem. I believe they are responsible since a predictably large percentage of their tracts end up on the street.
Either they don't hand them out or they do their civic duty and revisit the neighborhood the next day to clean up the mess.
The South Side and the rest of Pittsburgh need to clean up the litter. Let's not add to it.
BILL VODZAK
Sustainable development is anything but anti-growth
In his Oct. 3 Midweek Perspectives piece, "Let's Get Moving," Joseph Kirk correctly acknowledges that the principles of sustainable development are the most effective policy for enhancing our region's quality of life and well-being. Mr. Kirk, chairman of the Mon Valley/Fayette Expressway and Southern Beltway Alliance, is off the mark, however, to paint sustainability as anti-growth.
Sustainable development is anything but anti-growth. To the contrary, sustainability is about quality growth and economic development. It does not mean slowing down our economy.
It does mean a focus on development-by-learning, redesigning, improving and rebuilding rather than growth-by-pollution and overconsumption. It is about developing new industries that provide good wages and equal opportunity and enhance rather than pollute the environment. It is about recognizing the needs of all citizens to ensure access to affordable housing, a voice in public decisions, and a share in the benefits of a strong economy -- access to health care, education, public amenities, etc.
It is a strategy for public process that openly weighs the pros and cons of major public expenditures and balances the economic, social, and environmental consequences with a long-term perspective.
Sustainable communities that give us high quality of life are self-supporting, well-balanced places with cultural richness and diversity. We'll get there through a commitment to regional planning policies and effective protection of the environment. This includes improved air and water quality, waste reduction, recycling contaminated land for new use, and the use of renewable energy sources. A critical element in a sustainability policy is a regional transportation plan. This plan should include investment in rail and buses, be integrated with land use policies, and lead to reduced fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
These are some of the criteria that define sustainability. And, these criteria give us a means to look at each policy, new building, infrastructure project, and our actions and consider how they will impact on the environment, the economy and our everyday lives. Sustainability is found where gains in all three are maximized.
Sustainable Pittsburgh (www.sustainablepittsburgh.org) will use the principles of sustainability to assess the pros and cons of the Mon-Fayette Expressway and Southern Beltway toll roads. We will honor the growing awareness in our region that maximum and sustainable investments will flow only where the surroundings enhance that investment, as achieved by farsighted and intelligent planning.
Our region is joining nations, states, cities and neighborhoods around the world in recognizing that traditional approaches to planning and development create, rather than solve, societal and environmental problems. While traditional approaches can lead to congestion, sprawl, pollution and resource over-consumption, sustainable development offers solutions that will lead to smart quality growth, and a strengthening of our future.
COURT GOULD
Shadyside
Allegheny West
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis
Philadelphia
Indiana, Pa.
South Side
Director
Sustainable Pittsburgh
Downtown